This House calls for the increased use of referendums.

Governments exist to serve the will of the people, not the other way round; politicians take their instructions from their constituents, or should do. But in the modern state this relationship is often inverted. By obliging our democratic institutions to take genuine account of public opinion, and returning real political power back to those to whom it rightly belongs – the people – we can put the relationship between the individual and the state back on a healthier footing. In principle, people should have the right to decide for themselves on matters of importance to their lives. [1]

[1] . Beedham, Brian: “Power to the people: The case for Direct Democracy”, Civitas Review. Vol.3 Issue 2, June 2006. http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/CivitasReviewJune06.pdf

The public already has an effective veto on legislation, and retains the ultimate power over a politician’s career through its vote at general elections. When governments break their promises, or govern contrary to the preferences of their voters, they are punished by being ejected from office at the subsequent election. This is already an effective way to ensure that public opinion is never ignored for long.

In the past, it was impractical to organise frequent referendums due to the difficulty and expense of holding them. But with the advent of the internet and mass media, it is now easier than ever to consult the public on issues of concern to them. For example, Switzerland regularly holds referendums on all sorts of issues in an efficient manner which commands widespread public support. [1]

[1] Gerlach, Jan; Gasser, Urs. “Three Case Studies from Switzerland: E-Voting”, Internet and Democracy Case Study Series, March 2009. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Gerlach-Gasser_SwissCases_Evoting.pdf

Most developed nations are representative democracies, in which we elect people to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. We retain the ultimate control over these representatives at the ballot box, and if we disagree with the decisions they have made we can vote for different candidates at the next election. Just because we can consult the public more easily nowadays, that is no reason to destroy a system that has generally served us well for decades and, in some cases, centuries.

Furthermore, electronic voting is still in its infancy, and liable to fraud and technical problems. [1]

[1] ”E-Voting Rights”, Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.eff.org/issues/e-voting

People are apathetic about politics because they only get to vote once every few years. Even then it is not directly for policies but for competing political parties who promise to implement them (but often reverse position when in office). They feel that politicians do not listen to them between elections, and disengagement with the political process grows and grows. More frequent referendums would stimulate interest in politics because people would actually get a say in decisions. For example, evidence from the US shows that states with frequent use of ballot initiatives tend to have higher voter participation in elections. [1]

[1] Tolbert, Caroline; Grummel, John; Smith, Daniel. “The Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in the American States”. American Politics Research Vol. 29 No. 6, November 2001. http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/dasmith/apr.pdf

Most people are apathetic about politics because they find it dull or do not believe that it affects them. This may be regrettable but it is hard to see how increasing the number of votes they are asked to participate in will have a positive effect on this trend. On the contrary, many of those who do not like politics will quickly become even more bored and irritated if they are constantly bombarded with campaign literature, television adverts and activists ringing on their doorbells.

Many countries have two or three party systems in which there is no spread of opinion between these parties. The parties reflect sterile mainstream consensus and do not offer voters what they really want.

Consequently, large sectors of the public find their views unrepresented. Referendums will remedy this and increase engagement with the political system, because people will know that their views simply cannot be ignored.

For example, a majority in the UK favour the return of the death penalty, but no party among the main three offers this. [1] Whatever your views on this issues, it seems unfair that there is simply no way for voters’ views to be represented.

[1] Cafe, Rebecca. “Does the public want the death penalty brought back?”. BBC News, 4^th August 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14402195

If none of the parties support a policy it is probably because it has no significant support among the people! Much of modern politics is reactive; policies are tested by focus groups and carefully crafted to appeal to as many potential voters as possible. People may tell pollsters that they favour a particular policy (such as the reinstatement of the death penalty in the example from the Proposition side), but that does not necessarily mean that there is a grounds well of support for changing the law.

The trend in developed countries tends to be towards greater centralisation, and concentration of power in the hands of a small number of representatives. This, in turn, leads to the creation of a separate political class who will in some cases be more concerned with their own influence and enrichment than that of the voters, and makes it possible for wealthy individuals or companies to lobby politicians for laws favourable to their interests.

Increased use of referendums would potentially reduce the influence of lobby groups and corporate donors on the political system.[1]

[1] Knutsen, John. “Blueprint for a new European Confederation”, Basiclaw.net, January 2004. http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Direct%20democracy.htm

Increased use of referendums is unlikely to make much difference to the quality of governance. Governments and state commissions will retain most of their power, as only a small proportion of laws will be put before the public vote even if use of referendums is increased. It will certainly make no difference to the level of corruption.

As for corporate lobbyists, it can be argued that increased use of referendums will actually increase the influence of such groups. (See Opposition argument five, below.)

Particularly on contentious or controversial issues. Laws passed by public approval in this way will be less open to challenge, with all sides having to accept the will of the electorate. This is especially true of minority or coalition governments who may face accusations that they do not have a mandate for certain policies,[1] or situations where minority groups are exercising their right to self-determination.[2]

[1] May, Colin. “Canada’s Questionable ‘Coalition’”. C2C Canada Journal of Ideas. 22^nd June 2009. http://c2cjournal.ca/2009/06/canadas-questionable-coalition/

[2] Tierney, Stephen. “Referendums today: Self-determination as constituent power?”. European Journal of International Law blog, February 9^th 2011. http://www.ejiltalk.org/sudan%E2%80%99s-lesson-for-secession-a-comment/

Major constitutional changes such as the secession of South Sudan may well be appropriate for referendums, but using them to improve the democratic legitimacy of a government is misguided. Many policies touch on issues of human rights and the simple fact that a majority votes in favour of a particular policy will not be enough to convince opponents that the resulting law is fair or just.

Governments exist to serve the will of the people, not the other way round; politicians take their instructions from their constituents, or should do. But in the modern state this relationship is often inverted. By obliging our democratic institutions to take genuine account of public opinion, and returning real political power back to those to whom it rightly belongs – the people – we can put the relationship between the individual and the state back on a healthier footing. In principle, people should have the right to decide for themselves on matters of importance to their lives. [1]

[1] . Beedham, Brian: “Power to the people: The case for Direct Democracy”, Civitas Review. Vol.3 Issue 2, June 2006. http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/CivitasReviewJune06.pdf

The public already has an effective veto on legislation, and retains the ultimate power over a politician’s career through its vote at general elections. When governments break their promises, or govern contrary to the preferences of their voters, they are punished by being ejected from office at the subsequent election. This is already an effective way to ensure that public opinion is never ignored for long.

In the past, it was impractical to organise frequent referendums due to the difficulty and expense of holding them. But with the advent of the internet and mass media, it is now easier than ever to consult the public on issues of concern to them. For example, Switzerland regularly holds referendums on all sorts of issues in an efficient manner which commands widespread public support. [1]

[1] Gerlach, Jan; Gasser, Urs. “Three Case Studies from Switzerland: E-Voting”, Internet and Democracy Case Study Series, March 2009. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Gerlach-Gasser_SwissCases_Evoting.pdf

Most developed nations are representative democracies, in which we elect people to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. We retain the ultimate control over these representatives at the ballot box, and if we disagree with the decisions they have made we can vote for different candidates at the next election. Just because we can consult the public more easily nowadays, that is no reason to destroy a system that has generally served us well for decades and, in some cases, centuries.

Furthermore, electronic voting is still in its infancy, and liable to fraud and technical problems. [1]

[1] ”E-Voting Rights”, Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.eff.org/issues/e-voting

People are apathetic about politics because they only get to vote once every few years. Even then it is not directly for policies but for competing political parties who promise to implement them (but often reverse position when in office). They feel that politicians do not listen to them between elections, and disengagement with the political process grows and grows. More frequent referendums would stimulate interest in politics because people would actually get a say in decisions. For example, evidence from the US shows that states with frequent use of ballot initiatives tend to have higher voter participation in elections. [1]

[1] Tolbert, Caroline; Grummel, John; Smith, Daniel. “The Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in the American States”. American Politics Research Vol. 29 No. 6, November 2001. http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/dasmith/apr.pdf

Most people are apathetic about politics because they find it dull or do not believe that it affects them. This may be regrettable but it is hard to see how increasing the number of votes they are asked to participate in will have a positive effect on this trend. On the contrary, many of those who do not like politics will quickly become even more bored and irritated if they are constantly bombarded with campaign literature, television adverts and activists ringing on their doorbells.

Many countries have two or three party systems in which there is no spread of opinion between these parties. The parties reflect sterile mainstream consensus and do not offer voters what they really want.

Consequently, large sectors of the public find their views unrepresented. Referendums will remedy this and increase engagement with the political system, because people will know that their views simply cannot be ignored.

For example, a majority in the UK favour the return of the death penalty, but no party among the main three offers this. [1] Whatever your views on this issues, it seems unfair that there is simply no way for voters’ views to be represented.

[1] Cafe, Rebecca. “Does the public want the death penalty brought back?”. BBC News, 4^th August 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14402195

If none of the parties support a policy it is probably because it has no significant support among the people! Much of modern politics is reactive; policies are tested by focus groups and carefully crafted to appeal to as many potential voters as possible. People may tell pollsters that they favour a particular policy (such as the reinstatement of the death penalty in the example from the Proposition side), but that does not necessarily mean that there is a grounds well of support for changing the law.

The trend in developed countries tends to be towards greater centralisation, and concentration of power in the hands of a small number of representatives. This, in turn, leads to the creation of a separate political class who will in some cases be more concerned with their own influence and enrichment than that of the voters, and makes it possible for wealthy individuals or companies to lobby politicians for laws favourable to their interests.

Increased use of referendums would potentially reduce the influence of lobby groups and corporate donors on the political system.[1]

[1] Knutsen, John. “Blueprint for a new European Confederation”, Basiclaw.net, January 2004. http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Direct%20democracy.htm

Increased use of referendums is unlikely to make much difference to the quality of governance. Governments and state commissions will retain most of their power, as only a small proportion of laws will be put before the public vote even if use of referendums is increased. It will certainly make no difference to the level of corruption.

As for corporate lobbyists, it can be argued that increased use of referendums will actually increase the influence of such groups. (See Opposition argument five, below.)

Particularly on contentious or controversial issues. Laws passed by public approval in this way will be less open to challenge, with all sides having to accept the will of the electorate. This is especially true of minority or coalition governments who may face accusations that they do not have a mandate for certain policies,[1] or situations where minority groups are exercising their right to self-determination.[2]

[1] May, Colin. “Canada’s Questionable ‘Coalition’”. C2C Canada Journal of Ideas. 22^nd June 2009. http://c2cjournal.ca/2009/06/canadas-questionable-coalition/

[2] Tierney, Stephen. “Referendums today: Self-determination as constituent power?”. European Journal of International Law blog, February 9^th 2011. http://www.ejiltalk.org/sudan%E2%80%99s-lesson-for-secession-a-comment/

Major constitutional changes such as the secession of South Sudan may well be appropriate for referendums, but using them to improve the democratic legitimacy of a government is misguided. Many policies touch on issues of human rights and the simple fact that a majority votes in favour of a particular policy will not be enough to convince opponents that the resulting law is fair or just.

It is right that once the people have given it a mandate it should be able to carry out legislation with long term aims. Often good legislation is unpopular at first, but effective and popular in the long run. Such legislation would never survive a referendum. It is only fair that the government is given a chance to see if its legislation does indeed work. The people can then vote the government out of office if it fails.

Similarly, it is government’s job to lead and not to follow, especially on social legislation. For example, the US civil rights movement in the 1960s, and the equal marriage movement currently, might not command majority support from the public as a whole;[1] in order to advance equal rights, responsible government has to get out in front of public opinion, and make the argument for policies which are not yet popular enough to be passed in a referendum.

This approach is justified because parliamentarians are representatives not delegates (as famously pointed out by Burke to the electors of Bristol in 1776)[2] and can do what they think is best for the people even if that does not meet the people’s wishes.

[1] Bobo, Lawrence. “Attitudes toward the Black Political Movement”. Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 51 No.4, 1988. http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/bobo/pdf%20documents/Attitudes.pdf

[2] Burke, Edmund. “Speech to the electors of Bristol”. 3^rd November 1774. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html

It is true that a responsible government should draft legislation with a view to its long term benefits. However, many governments do not do this; programmes are often set up, laws changed or taxes cut with a view to short term electoral benefit and narrow party political gain, not the good of the country. Arguably, the electorate are more likely to vote on issues for the “right” reasons than are their elected representatives.

Saying that government should lead public opinion, rather than follow it, is simply another way of saying that the state should ignore the will of the public. It is hard to see how it can be justified for governments to pass laws which they know do not command public support. Clearly there may be exceptions in extreme situations - such as the abolition of slavery in the 19^th century – but, broadly speaking, the citizens of a country should have the right to order their society in the way they think is best.

Unless there is a minimum threshold for valid votes, freak results will occur. If the threshold is too high, on the other hand, then public aspirations may be thwarted, as for example with the Scottish Home Rule referendum of 1979, where a majority of those who voted supported devolution but not enough to get the proposal passed into law.[1]

Furthermore, public opinion changes over time. Once you have introduced the principle that issues of national concern are to be settled by referendums, there will be nothing to stop the same question being put to the public vote time after time.

[1] “The path to devolution”, Scottish Parliament history pages. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/history/pathtodevolution/index.htm

It is possible to avoid freakish results by only allowing a referendum to be valid if a certain percentage of the population votes, say 30%. Or indeed by implementing a threshold for setting up a referendum in the first place. There is no reason to think it would be hard to find a formula that avoids these sorts of problems.

It may be formally true that the same referendum question could be put to the public again and again, but the same can be said of any political question in the status quo. Once a referendum has been held on an issue, politicians are unlikely to risk the wrath of the electorate by making them vote on the same question repeatedly.

The last thing they want is more votes. This will only lead to greater overall apathy and even lower turnout in general elections. California is a classic example of frequent referendums failing to ignite any noticeable interest among its people. The 2011 referendum on electoral reform in the UK was similarly ignored by the public.[1]

[1] Davies, Caroline. “Apathy and anger dominate as AV decision looms”. The Guardian, 15^th April 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/15/alternative-vote-referendum-chesterfield

People are bored with politics because they think that it is irrelevant to them and that politicians are not interested in their opinions. Increasing the use of referendums is an excellent way of increasing engagement with the general public; it forces the political establishment to listen to popular opinion, and gives ordinary people a much greater say in how their country is run. See Proposition argument 3, above.

The results are often strongly influenced by factors unrelated to the proposal on the ballot, such as; the timing of the referendum (controlled by the government); the point in the electoral cycle; media coverage of the issues, which may be biased or irresponsible; and the amount of money spent on advertising by each side. For example, in the 2005 referendum held by France on the European Union Constitution, the Yes lobby was supported by the majority of the political establishment and almost all the media, and outspent the No campaign by a significant margin. Opponents argued that the referendum was not conducted on a level playing field.[1]

[1] Wyatt, Caroline. “French media in referendum ‘bias’ row”. BBC News, 21^st May 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4568819.stm

It is perfectly possible to construct a model for increased use of referendums which reduces to a minimum the distorting factors cited by the Opposition. For example, the timing, wording and conduct of the polls could be overseen by an independent commission. Rules could also be implemented to restrict spending by both sides to fair levels. Media, too, are bound by law in many countries to provide equal coverage to both sides.[1]

[1] “A comparative look at referendum laws”, Institute for International Law and Human Rights, February 2009. http://iilhr.org/documents/complookreferendumlaw.pdf